Yes, like political philosophy 101 deals with these abominations and why they are wrong

not a goal

If transhumanism doesn’t involve the imitation of force, go ahead.

Fake christian

>Christian

anarchism is more of a symptom than an ideal of ancaps.

>Ok with Transhumanism

Technology can certainly allow something we would consider an evolution of current humans.

anarchism is the absolute right of free association, not a symptom, you still know nothing about terms and keep trying to reframe them

water, youre sounding like a liberal focusing on violence

if it hurt dopamine it bad

i have exactly one idea, don’t initiate violence against others.

that’s it.

and you can have that

If it hurt dopamine bad

everything else stems off of it.

without having anarchy

the state cannot function without the use of violence

voluntary governments are fine, though.

All violence by the state is justified

Well, that is one thing you got right at least

>dont initiate violence and state cause violence but if someone wnats to make a state thus use violence its ok

holy shit

that’s some circular-ass logic if i’ve ever heard it.

Consented violence is fine, until the kids pop up, then it's rape

Water, how will you achieve anarchy

without violence

you can voluntarily associate yourself with a governing body, but the state as we perceive it now functions through violence

Voluntary disassociation with government.

Well, it would be premitted under ancap "rule"

>Now
Reactionary

so states can be non violent

yet you seem to dump the entire idea of a state out the window

state and government aren’t the same term

If you've played any grand strategy game you know that NAPs don't work to solve violence

especcially in eu4

CK2 is now proofs used in Political Science

just look at the damn HRE

>video games
>basically modern politics

Water

Strategy games, generals play them